Author Topic: 2016 Presidential (Read 470263 times)

DougMacG · « **Reply #550 on:** October 23, 2015, 04:49:53 PM »

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/10/14/forget-what-you-saw-last-night-two-simple-reasons-a-republican-is-likely-to-win-in-2016/

First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running.
In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to
suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.

This far from Election Day, published poll data is off by an average of 8 percentage points compared with the true election outcome.

Time before election, Average error of polls (compared to final results)
One week    1.7%
One month    2.7%
Two months 3.8%
Three months 4.8%
Six months    5.8%
Nine months 6.9%
Twelve months 7.9%

In order for a successor candidate to have better than even chances of winning, the sitting president must have an approval rating of above 55 percent.
Because Barack Obama’s average approval rating is now at 45 percent

President (Govt) approval rating, SUCCESSOR probability of victory

40%    6%

45%    14%

50%    28%

55%    49%

60%    71%

ppulatie · « **Reply #551 on:** October 24, 2015, 08:02:15 AM »

Okay, there is now more evidence that we are in an Alternate String Universe.

Cher had good words for Trump and was against Carson.

What happened to my "old universe"?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/say-what-far-left-cher-promotes-donald-trump-a-giant-among-gop-front-runners/

ppulatie · « **Reply #552 on:** October 25, 2015, 12:02:39 PM »

Jeb Bush had a "stompy feet" reaction yesterday in South Carolina yesterday. His comments:

"If this election is about how we're going to fight to get nothing done, then ... I don't want any part of it. I don't want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation," he said.

"I've got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that," Bush added.

I can now see the new Trump ads coming out:

Make American Great Again - Elect Trump if you want that

Border Wall - Elect Trump if you want that,

Immigration Control - Elect Trump if you want that,

Tax reform - Elect Trump if you want that,

Jeb is finished, kaput........

DougMacG · « **Reply #553 on:** October 25, 2015, 03:07:24 PM »

Both Jeb and Trump looked whiney in the past day or so. Trump overreacting that his Iowa polls are dipping, taking a shot at Carson over religion, at the Des Moines Register as a terrible newspaper, Quinnipiac as a terrible university. He has built too much of his reason for being around leading in all the polls to handle the ups and downs of it all.

More twists and tuirns in this road are coming.

ppulatie · « **Reply #554 on:** October 25, 2015, 03:41:16 PM »

Trump's "attack" on Carson was "perfect".

Remember that Carson made the original comment on faith and Trump and implied that the Trump faith was less than to be desired.

Trump responded yesterday with the comment about not knowing much about Carsons' 7 Day Adventist Faith. When Trump mentioned 7 Day Adventist, my immediate thought was that on a Sat morning, I would be having a cup of coffee and the door bell would ring. Open it up and there would be Carson asking me about my faith in God and mentioning that the end was near.

How many other people will have the same reaction, especially the evangelicals that are not 7 Day Adventist?

ppulatie · « **Reply #555 on:** October 25, 2015, 03:45:06 PM »

Now I have commented numerous times about the Chamber of Commerce influencing the election in favor of RINO's pushing their agenda. Now this......

Paul Ryan's Speaker Chief of Staff will be David Hoppe, lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce.

COC is:

Pro Amnesty
Pro TPP
Pro ObamaCare
Pro Common Core

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #556 on:** October 25, 2015, 06:51:30 PM »

Without hesitation Carson backed off his comment about the sincerity of Trump's claims of faith, so properly Trump should not be casting the aspersions that he is casting here. FWIW my sense of things is that Trump's proclivity for creating food fight snark fests is starting to wear rather thin with a lot of people; it may not have reached critical mass, but he may be setting himself up for a fall.

PP: Thanks for the heads up on Hoppe.

ccp · « **Reply #557 on:** October 25, 2015, 07:31:11 PM »

"FWIW my sense of things is that Trump's proclivity for creating food fight snark fests is starting to wear rather thin with a lot of people; it may not have reached critical mass, but he may be setting himself up for a fall."

Yup. My thoughts on this too.

ppulatie · « **Reply #558 on:** October 26, 2015, 08:21:53 AM »

Does this mean that Trump cannot address things about Carson until attacked? What things are off the table then to challenge Carson on?

In the case of the 7 Day Adventist comment, Trump cited that he did not know anything about the religion. That was all that was said. For him to make that statement, it is now deemed an attack on Carson.

But how many people really know anything about the 7 Day Adventist religion? Do many people know that the 7DA believes in the complete accuracy of the Bible? Every word is truth, even though the Bible contradicts itself in Genesis about the creation of the world? That before Eve, there was Lillith? Creationism versus evolution? The earth is no more than a few thousand years old?

If one is going to vote on evangelical concerns, is it not important that those voters understand the nature of the religion and its beliefs? It was certainly somewhat applicable to Romney and his religion is one significant reason that he lost.

What about Carson's beliefs that abortion should not be allowed in the case of rape or incest, or threat to the life of the mother? This is all a direct result of his religious beliefs.

How much does his religious beliefs affect his policy positions? If his religion is against war and he is a complete pacifist, should not this be a valid subject to consider?

One may not like the method that Trump uses, the 10 second sound bite, but the questions raised are of a concern. After all, religious beliefs can be a huge influence to the "true believer"?

I apologize if I offend anyone for some of what I have written, but IMO, a person's religious beliefs that have formed him must be considered in any context of public officer. After all, Carson raised the issue himself when he stated that a Muslim should not be elected to the presidency because their beliefs are contrary to the Constitution. If so, why should Carson and 7DA be any different?

ccp · « **Reply #559 on:** October 26, 2015, 08:34:57 AM »

PP,
I don't know anything about the back and forth religious claims of Trump and Carson.

I suppose it is relevant to the Evangelicals but I for one couldn't care less about these minor points.

I am just saying, and I think Craft is too, that this is all side show stuff anyway.

We really want to hear him talk about taking the country back in the direction we believe it should be going and away from the path of tyranny.

I for one do not want to spend the little time I have left living in a country where every moment of my life is controlled by left wingers from the Political, wealthy class, and IVY league know it alls.

That said it seems more and more people, including a big majority of those who are coming here from elsewhere ( and of course the reason immigration law is not enforced) are ok with this.

In any case that is what I want Trump to be focusing on. Not back and forth bitty stuff. I don't recall Reagan ever wasting time on the detail stuff. But my memory may be off.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #560 on:** October 26, 2015, 08:42:22 AM »

You make your points reasonably Pat. In response:

a) Saying he did not know anything about 7DA is a bit disingenuous-- he is deliberately calling attention to doubts that evangelicals have about 7DAs, just as they did about Romney to his loss;

b) My fiercely atheistic 16 year old son mocks Christianity as a "cult dedicated to the worship of a Jewish zombie". Certainly there is much challenge that can be made to standard Christian doctrine (How did the baby Jesus get past the hymen that was still there due to Mary being a virgin?) but really, is this how we want our political discourse to go?

c) Are you seeing any signs that BC is a pacifist? I'm not.

d) With regard to a Muslim becoming president, what Dr. Ben said was that he, OR ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION, must hold the Constitution first just as he, Dr. Ben, did.

DougMacG · « **Reply #561 on:** October 26, 2015, 09:39:05 AM »

"but really, is this how we want our political discourse to go? "

Right, that seems to be the heart of it. Trump was clearly trying to raise the doubts of Carson's religion. Relevant if you could tie it to a fault in how he would govern. He didn't. PP points out the literal belief in the bible as if the others don't have some of that too. Again relevant if it fit a mold that Carson seemed to be an idiot who might deny the age of the planet etc. Tearing the other guy down to build yourself up is soooo Christian - NOT.

Trump repeated 3 or 4 times, "I am a Presbyterian", meaning what? That he belongs to some non-controversial, vanilla - milk toast type of church? I don't know. Evangelicals that I know call themselves Christians. Presbyterians I know also call themselves Christians. The Presbyterian Church is a place where they practice Christianity, not Presbyterianism. Saying it over and over makes it sound like you aren't one. So does the life he leads and the way he conducts himself, casting aspersions at every opportunity. Not something I ever saw taught at the Presbyterian Church.

"Presbyterian theology typically emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the authority of the Scriptures, and the necessity of grace through faith in Christ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism

Putting religion aside, I used to want to consider myself a self made man, that I put myself through college and did other things all by myself, as if my family and others weren't a crucial part of every opportunity that came to me. Over time I came to learn how false that was. Trump self-centeredness and lack of humility reminds me of my own immaturity about 35 years ago. Neither of us accomplished as much as we think we have or had.

Carson had a great answer for Connor, but I can't find the recent quote, so I paraphrase, Do you know scientists who can create something out of nothing or have seen life evolve out of non-life? I don't.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-evolution-life-evolve-non-life-incredible-fairy-tales

I put it this way before I knew Carson's line. I will let you pick all the top scientists in the world, give you complete access to unlimited quantities of all elements and molecules known in the universe, and no time limit. Create life.

ppulatie · « **Reply #562 on:** October 26, 2015, 12:11:59 PM »

I use religion only as an example of how it can influence a person's biases and beliefs, and how that could effect how they might govern.

The truth is that in the name of religion, some of the most devastating wars have been fought time and again, caused by those who are true believers and who will wage war on those beliefs. In fact, we are engaged in one right now with radical Islam.

Religions were established to control people and populations and to guide them in the way that others perceived life should go. This is the same as the tax code is used today. The problem is that religion must adapt and change as the times change, like the great Reformation in Europe. Failure to do so means that problems like Islamic Fundamentalism occurs.

500 years have passed since the Reformation. Society and technology changes now in just a few decades. Religious thought must accept those changes and adapt to them.

This is the problem I see with Carson today as well as others. Has his own religious thoughts, so based in a literal interpretation of the Bible, influenced him that he cannot see beyond his current beliefs? Is he willing to consider other options that might conflict with his religious beliefs?

I don't know the answers, but before I could support a candidate like him, I would have to know more where he stands..........

ppulatie · « **Reply #563 on:** October 26, 2015, 12:26:50 PM »

"Ben Carson has overtaken Donald Trump in Iowa, surging to a 14-point lead, according to a new poll. A Monmouth University survey released on Monday found Carson taking 32 percent support in Iowa, followed by Trump at 18 percent."

The problem with this poll is that it was 55% evangelicals and 45% non-evangelicals. Think this would have a difference in the result? Naaa.........no way. (sarcasm off)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/258081-poll-carson-opens-up-14-point-lead-over-trump-in-iowa

DougMacG · « **Reply #564 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:11:05 AM »

Carson leads in latest national poll.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-ben-carson-edges-out-donald-trump/

ccp · « **Reply #565 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:43:11 AM »

Evangelical change of heart?

ppulatie · « **Reply #566 on:** October 27, 2015, 07:44:18 AM »

Margin of Error is 7% on Republican voters. Other sub groups 6%. 4% overall. No other internals were released.

What we now have is Iowa where the polls have changed to Carson heavily in the last 3. A trend here clearly exists. Of course, Iowa is highly predictive. Just ask President Huckabee in 2008 and President Santorum in 2012. (Also, heavy ad buys for Carson by his PACs and CFG/COC in favor of Carson or attacking Trump.)

The NYT/CBS poll showing Carson over Trump nationally for the first time, but the internals are not released, so who knows. Is it an outlier? All other national polls show Trump ahead. Must wait to see other polls.

Trump winning in every other state except Oklahoma an Louisiana. If Trump keeps up in those states, then what does the NYT/CBS poll mean?

On the nomination front, this would suggest that Carson would have 3 of 8 states needed for his name to go into nomination. How does he get to eight? Trump needs to be knocked out.

For Trump, if there is a shift, he must stop the bleeding. He does this through heavy advertising buys in the first states, as he has said will begin in November. Then he goes after the opposition on issues.

For Rubio, he has a problem. If he takes out Trump, much of the Trump support will go to Carson or Cruz. It really does not do him much good. Otherwise, he must take out Carson. It is believed that he would pick up quite a bit of the Carson support. So if he takes out Trump, then it becomes more difficult to challenge Carson.

Sounds like for Rubio, he must go after the Carson/Cruz faction, gain some of that support and then hope that Trump drops further.

Now, notice what is really happening over the last month:

1. Media and others have been pushing Carson heavily. Lots of airtime and articles on him, mostly positive.

2. Media has stopped covering Trump rallies, and puts him into negative light. All negative polls are referenced day and night, and positive polls ignored.

3. COC and CFG have aligned to go after Trump.

4. GOPe has been pushing Rubio more.

5. Polls in Iowa and the new NYT/CBS polls are pushed heavily suggesting a trend against Trump. Positive polls in the other states are ignored.

There has obviously been a concerted effort to blunt Trump by the "usual suspects". The Wed night CNBC debate and then the Fox debate two weeks later will show whether there is a true media "hit job" in progress. The polls in between will show whether there is a real trend for Carson against Trump.

Again, I expect that Rubio will be the nominee due to the GOPe and Media efforts. And then Hillary will win in the General Election.

ppulatie · « **Reply #567 on:** October 27, 2015, 08:40:33 AM »

Morning Consult Poll

http://morningconsult.com/2015/10/poll-carson-rises-to-challenge-trump/

"Billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump’s lead over the Republican presidential field faces a new challenge from retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a new survey shows, as conservative voters show a strong preference for outsider candidates rather than established politicians.

Trump continues to lead the GOP field with 35 percent of the vote, down from the 40 percent who said they would support him in last week’s Morning Consult tracking survey. Carson finishes in second place, with 20 percent of the vote."

What this means is that the polls coming out are finding results based upon the internals of the poll. Some like the NYT/CBS and IDB who are not providing internals are circumspect for that very reason. There may be trends going to Carson, but this could be due to the heavy emphasis placed on him right now by the media. And that could be why Trump is falling.

Where things go from here depends on the next two debates.

ppulatie · « **Reply #568 on:** October 27, 2015, 12:34:44 PM »

Gravis Poll out. Trump leading nationally, 35.6% to 21.7% over Carson. Internals provided which were not done with the NYT/CBS poll.

"Who's on first? What's on second.....?"

http://www.oann.com/pollnational/

DougMacG · « **Reply #569 on:** October 27, 2015, 12:56:42 PM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 27, 2015, 12:34:44 PM

Gravis Poll out. Trump leading nationally, 35.6% to 21.7% over Carson. Internals provided which were not done with the NYT/CBS poll.

"Who's on first? What's on second.....?"
http://www.oann.com/pollnational/

Looks good for your prediction - that Rubio is the nominee. Marco starting to pull away from both Bush and Cruz.

I hear conservatives like Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush start to move toward the conservative candidate - Cruz. All 3 have way too cozy with Donald Trump for different reasons, now starting to get serious.

Carly is back, see WSJ today, 'someone' please post. Beck had her on this am. I heard just the end
When she left, they said that wasn't her best interview. Will check podcast at glennbeck.com.

Big event is the debate tomorrow. We already knowostly what they will say. What we learn is what other people's perceptions of it is.

If Trump's trend line is not down, we should be able to post similar or better results for h to this one in 2-3 weeks. I bet not.

Carson takes out Trump then fails to win the nomination. Rubio is frontrunner of the rest. Cruz becomes the challenger left chasing Rubio, making Rubio look centrist, reasonable and electable. Hillary is exposed as a liar (that was hard to see coming.

). Everyone lives happily ever after.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #570 on:** October 27, 2015, 01:52:09 PM »

We live in interesting times!

ppulatie · « **Reply #571 on:** October 27, 2015, 02:23:00 PM »

The GOP, COC, media and CFG have all stepped up to push Carson and Rubio at this point. But time is running short.

Trump must be negated by the beginning of the primaries for Rubio to move forward. Anything else is too late. If he starts winning primaries, then he will increase in strength. Also, his money will allow him to continue after March 15.

These next two debates are the key to eliminating Trump. If he gets past them with little damage done, then barring a Trump self destruction, he should go into the first primaries in pretty good shape.

If Trump can be taken care of and gotten out, Carson becomes a much easier target especially after March 15. Prevent him from winning too many primaries, and then without Trump, the road is clear for Rubio.

Cruz is not a real factor unless Carson supporters will move to him in large numbers.

G M · « **Reply #572 on:** October 27, 2015, 03:15:00 PM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 27, 2015, 02:23:00 PM

The GOP, COC, media and CFG have all stepped up to push Carson and Rubio at this point. But time is running short.

Trump must be negated by the beginning of the primaries for Rubio to move forward. Anything else is too late. If he starts winning primaries, then he will increase in strength. Also, his money will allow him to continue after March 15.

These next two debates are the key to eliminating Trump. If he gets past them with little damage done, then barring a Trump self destruction, he should go into the first primaries in pretty good shape.

If Trump can be taken care of and gotten out, Carson becomes a much easier target especially after March 15. Prevent him from winning too many primaries, and then without Trump, the road is clear for Rubio.

Cruz is not a real factor unless Carson supporters will move to him in large numbers.

We can only hope. Cruz is the best option.

ppulatie · « **Reply #573 on:** October 27, 2015, 03:26:31 PM »

What the hell is going on with the polling? Latest PPP poll in North Carolina showing massive Trump lead. Most other states showing the same.

Compare and contrast the state polls with the National Polls which are now jumping around and no one has a clear idea of what is happening. Likely it all comes down to the assumptions being made about the electorate characteristics and then the sample of voters that meet those characteristics.

DougMacG · « **Reply #574 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:29:22 PM »

Next one out is Rand Paul. He needs to run for Senate. Lindsey Graham, Santorum, Pataki could get out (and no one would notice). Huckabee can get out; he's had his turn. And then Bush, obviously. That would thin it enough for now.

DougMacG · « **Reply #575 on:** October 27, 2015, 06:51:11 PM »

New polling strength makes Marco Rubio a top target at debate
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/10/27/new-polling-strength-makes-marco-rubio-top-target-debate/74696708/

WASHINGTON — Marco Rubio may find himself in an unusual position — a magnet for attack — when he takes the stage at Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate in Boulder, Colo.
When his poll numbers were lower, Rubio largely avoided taking fire from his rivals. But strong performances at two previous debates — and stumbles by former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates — have made Rubio the top GOP establishment candidate. He's now in third place overall behind retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and businessman Donald Trump.
------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't. Attacking Rubio just gives him more time and attention in the debate. Makes him look like the leader.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #576 on:** October 27, 2015, 08:16:14 PM »

With the focus on economics in tomorrow night's debate I have my eye out for the following:

a) Trump dropped off a tax reform plan with a drive by presentation a couple of weeks ago without sticking around to defend it. Will he come back to it? Will it be brought back to him?

b) Similar questions with Rubio. As we discussed here at the time, the WSJ had some serious questions about Rubio's tax plan. I remember being surprised at the time at how little Rubio engaged with the questions-- they could have provided an opportunity for him to evolve the plan.

c) Huckabee has a chance to shine here with his national sales tax.

d) IIRC Carson has a flat rate? Anyway, this can be a pivotal moment for him to see if he can run with the big dogs on economics.

e) This can be a chance for Rand Paul to delay the inevitable

f) Carly? With her business career as a cornerstone of her pitch, she needs to shine here.

ppulatie · « **Reply #577 on:** October 28, 2015, 10:28:19 AM »

CD,

a. Trump has defended the plan many times. As to having the lower income not paying any taxes, he has said that for most of them, it costs more to process the tax return than what is paid. Good point on that.

b. Haven't heard anything on the Rubio plan since he presented it.

c. Huckabee will have problems with the National Sales Tax from the Dems and the poor. Sales Tax is regressive in nature for the lower income. So there will have to be some sort of exemptions to offset the regressive nature.

d. The Carson Flat Tax is interesting, but the parameters must be fleshed out.

e. Paul has to get out soon and focus upon his Senate Seat.

f. Snarly? Is she still around?

DougMacG · « **Reply #578 on:** October 28, 2015, 10:57:53 AM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 28, 2015, 10:28:19 AM

CD,

a. Trump has defended the plan many times. As to having the lower income not paying any taxes, he has said that for most of them, it costs more to process the tax return than what is paid. Good point on that.

b. Haven't heard anything on the Rubio plan since he presented it.

c. Huckabee will have problems with the National Sales Tax from the Dems and the poor. Sales Tax is regressive in nature for the lower income. So there will have to be some sort of exemptions to offset the regressive nature.

d. The Carson Flat Tax is interesting, but the parameters must be fleshed out.

e. Paul has to get out soon and focus upon his Senate Seat.

f. Snarly? Is she still around?

a. Trump needs to change the focus of people dropping off the tax rolls to people moving their income up to where they do contribute! Does it cost more than it's worth to process their FICA taxes? I don't think so.

b. Agree, it will be interesting to see if Rubio still defends the Rubio-Lee tax plan. For the time being it removes him from the obvious questions aimed at Carson and Trump about exploding the deficit or asked to name $xx trillion in cuts.

c. The 'Fair Tax' has a 'prebate' for the downtrodden. Great, that's what poor people are good at is managing money and having available and with them every time they get charged a 30% tax to buy a car, house or replace their furnace. The Fair Tax is a replacement for the entire tax system, and requires repeal of the income tax amendment, which in 2015-2016 means you are living in a fairy tale world. Gov Huckabee, please name 38 states that support repealing all income taxation even on the rich. Otherwise adding a federal sales tax is just another case of conservatives handing liberals another way to tax us to death. For Huckabee, it is a poliitcal distraction aimed at misleading the gullible to advance his candidacy. (IMHO) Does Europe use a VAT tax instead of an income tax, or in addition to it?

d. Carson's comparison of taxation to tithing was illustrative, not a serious policy proposal from a Presidential candidate as far as I know. Yes, he will have to answer for that and it is getting late to just talk about vague principles (for taking $4 trillion away from the people) when others have actual plans on the table.

e. Paul, agree, needs to run for his Senate seat.

f. Carly - perhaps makes the strongest case spelling out the utter failure of Obama-Hillary-onomics. Watch for her to have a great moment on that.

ppulatie · « **Reply #579 on:** October 28, 2015, 11:19:20 AM »

DMG,

a. Trump has stated exactly that. Increase income and jobs so that people reenter into the tax rolls. (Any candidate will lose to the Dems if they promote everyone paying something right now. This is just reality. Reentering into tax rolls by income increases is the only viable approach.)

c. Agreed. The Fair Tax is not going to happen. This would require the repeal of the Income Tax and loss of tax related jobs, plus a reduction in the IRS. Isn't going to happen.

The National Sales Tax is likely to end up a VAT approach at some point. Every point in the sales process would be taxed and added to the price. Just like Europe. Easier to hide the taxes that way.

f. Yeah, but Snarly so far is a one trick pony. After any debate, she falls back to earth again.

G M · « **Reply #580 on:** October 28, 2015, 11:23:44 AM »

VAT is a surefire way to really cripple our economy.

ppulatie · « **Reply #581 on:** October 28, 2015, 11:28:35 AM »

So is a National Sales Tax without repeal of the Income Tax. But all of our money belongs to the government, so what the heck?

ppulatie · « **Reply #582 on:** October 28, 2015, 11:54:38 AM »

New Economist/YouGov poll results below

Okay, once again we see the mess in the polling going on. Does one believe the NYT/CBS poll or the large number of National Polls showing other results? BTW, on the NYT poll, there are some "issues". The methodology was finally released. It includes:

…” The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Oct. 21-25 on cellphones and landlines with 575 Republican primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus six percentage points for each candidate. Additional findings from the full poll will be published Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.“…

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/27/poll-watch-ben-carson-edges-ahead-nationally-in-timescbs-news-poll/

…”[…] For purposes of analysis, Republican registered voters were oversampled in this poll. Phone numbers at which a self-identified Republican registered voter had been interviewed in recent SSRS polls were recalled, and a random member of the household was interviewed. If that person was a Republican registered voter, he or she was included in the oversampling. The Republican oversample was adjusted to account for possible nonresponse to the callback. All partisan categories were then weighted to their proper proportion of the overall population, as determined by averaging the partisan shares from several recent SSRS polls.

Interviewers made multiple attempts to reach every phone number in the survey, calling back unanswered numbers on different days at different times of day and night.

The combined results have been weighted to adjust for variation in the sample relating to geographic region, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, age, education and (for landline households) the number of adults and number of phone lines.

In addition, the sample was adjusted to reflect the percentage of the population residing in mostly Democratic counties, mostly Republican counties and counties more closely balanced politically.”…

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/us/politics/how-the-new-york-times-cbs-poll-was-conducted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

That’s only a small portion of their explanation. They were polling people that they had previously called and polled in addition to new calls. Then additional "adjustments" were made.

This wasn’t even a random poll, but instead an agenda driven poll.

DougMacG · « **Reply #583 on:** October 28, 2015, 12:01:17 PM »

Quote from: G M on October 28, 2015, 11:23:44 AM

VAT is a surefire way to really cripple our economy.

You mean even further... Thank you GM and PP for picking up on this.

We had a 'discussion' on the forum some time ago IIRC where it was alleged (bigdog?) that France and Germany had per capita incomes comparable to or better than in the US. But when the per capita income was measured in PPP, purchasing power parity, which would mean after paying your VAT tax, both France and Germany were found to be poorer than 45 out of 50 states.

The question of comparing consumption taxes and production taxes is that IF we were designing our tax system from scratch and if everyone had the country's best interest in mind, then which type of tax system would be better.

The Founders had tariffs because they didn't want a 1776 IRS or a big, expensive federal government. But small sources of taxes don't work INSTEAD of income taxes after we already have $4 trillion in unretractable spending and have more than half the people dependent on receiving a check from the government.

We are a union of states and most of us already pay a sales tax, so a 30% tax becomes a 40% tax and all economic activity starts again to move to black market, or do without.

It would still be far easier and fairier to apply a 10% flat tax to all income if that would pay all our bills. But that can't be passed and it wouldn't pay all our bills.

Maybe the debate will help sort out who is serious and which plans are not.

ppulatie · « **Reply #584 on:** October 28, 2015, 12:06:04 PM »

Hyperinflation solves everything.........except for the people's ability to eat.

ppulatie · « **Reply #585 on:** October 28, 2015, 12:11:38 PM »

Wonder if anyone will ask the candidates tonight about the new GOP 2 year budget deal with the Dems?

The deal increases the budget limit, and sets the budget for the next two years. This takes budget campaign issues off the table.

Again I ask............."why should I vote for any politician"?

objectivist1 · « **Reply #586 on:** October 28, 2015, 12:43:31 PM »

Rush Limbaugh makes an excellent point here. This is how far the Republican Party leadership has sunk. I might add that Paul Ryan's supposed "disgust" for the process is an act - the fix was in from the beginning - and he agreed to it with Boehner.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/28/how_the_budget_deal_paves_the_way_for_president_hillary_rodham_clinton

G M · « **Reply #587 on:** October 28, 2015, 01:06:49 PM »

Trump will be targeted by the dem political operative "moderating" and will not do a good job.

ppulatie · « **Reply #588 on:** October 28, 2015, 01:44:08 PM »

GM,

That is what I expect. It is part of the strategy to take him out.

And the moderator, John Harwood, is a known Dem and Hillary shill.

objectivist1 · « **Reply #589 on:** October 28, 2015, 02:04:06 PM »

I wouldn't be at all surprised if REPUBLICAN operatives have given this moderator ammunition to take out Trump. That's how much he is despised by the Republican establishment.

ppulatie · « **Reply #590 on:** October 28, 2015, 02:30:42 PM »

Okay, things get more interesting. Jeb PACs have started ads against Rubio. The them is "Is he Working" and going after the missed votes.

Jeb must feel that he needs to take out Rubio fast to counter "the threat" of Rubio massing more support. The question is where the Rubio support might go. Likely not to Jeb.

Going to get very interesting.........

G M · « **Reply #591 on:** October 28, 2015, 02:38:36 PM »

Rubio is a open borders rhino!-Jeb

ppulatie · « **Reply #592 on:** October 28, 2015, 03:38:38 PM »

Kettle calling the pot black........they are both open border RINOs........and they lie

ppulatie · « **Reply #593 on:** October 28, 2015, 05:34:28 PM »

Debate

First Question on each person's weakness......

Only Trump and Carson answered. the others did political statements. Screw them.

ppulatie · « **Reply #594 on:** October 28, 2015, 05:50:31 PM »

Definitely Jeb is out to destroy Rubio now. I guess that the Sunday/Monday meeting with Mommy and Daddy found that he had to eliminate Rubio while others tried to take out Trump. After Trump and Rubio fall, then the GOP and Bush go after Carson.

ppulatie · « **Reply #595 on:** October 28, 2015, 05:56:23 PM »

Cruz did the Gingrich moment attacking the media. Moderators don't know what to do.

He just "won" the debate. His standing will increase significantly.

G M · « **Reply #596 on:** October 28, 2015, 06:44:26 PM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 28, 2015, 05:56:23 PM

Cruz did the Gingrich moment attacking the media. Moderators don't know what to do.

He just "won" the debate. His standing will increase significantly.

Cruz is a brilliant guy.

ppulatie · « **Reply #597 on:** October 28, 2015, 07:03:50 PM »

The Huckster just scored a Hat Trick!!!!

"I have gone up against the Clinton's time and again, and I have won...........and I have lived to tell about it!!!!"

My respect for him just went up, but I won't vote for him.

ppulatie · « **Reply #598 on:** October 28, 2015, 07:20:40 PM »

Snarly,

Here is what I cannot get past.

1. continuous eye blinking

2. Head bobbing and moving

3. Condenscending tone

4. Misrepresentations

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #599 on:** October 28, 2015, 07:50:29 PM »

I thought it was a great debate tonight, with pretty much everyone having good moments, with some having a number of great moments. I liked the way they more or less came together as a team and underlined the overall strength of Republican bench. A good night for the home team!

OTOH the moderators got anally raped repeatedly.

News:

Author Topic: 2016 Presidential (Read 470263 times)